What if TV and radio broadcasters could broadcast paid ads direct from registered political parties

but otherwise they were forbidden from carrying political content? Political content would continue to be available via the written word: websites, newspapers, magazines, etc. After all, the written word is a good enough format for the Constitution, and it's a good enough format for all of the statutes, regulations, and case law.

Surely it would put less pressure on the public purse to give broadcasters an exemption on taxes associated with real estate than to continue to periodically bail out financial institutions.

The S&L crisis (courtesy of Ronald Reagan and his supporters) was one example of a need to bail out financial institutions. The current crisis is another example.

Just leads to all kinds of first amendment issues, and precedent issues that could be used on any opinions on anything.

However you can balance the dollars available on both sides.

But the best way, is let people know that political adds are attempts to buy their own thinking. Especially when for years so many were just untrue.

A untrue or spinning political ad should be viewed as an attempt of theft to the viewer of the ad, a slap in the face, or an attempt to shackle their mind. It should be offensive to a viewer.

Who said anything about taking money out of politics? You could contribute as much money as you like to an existing political party or create your own party and contribute as much money as you like to it.

This is about format. An eye-witness who is subpoenaed and required to testify in court isn't allowed to give a multimedia presentation, but is required to use the format of spoken words. If you brought some wood into court and said that you would answer all questions using smoke signals, then you would get into trouble. Crying "censorship" wouldn't help you.

Wait, I get it, you are saying remove the imagery and marketing by visual effects. So you are not limiting speech, unless the form the speech comes in is part of what speech is.

I missed your point on your original post.

That's one legitimate concern, but it's not the only concern and it's not the only thing that distinguishes television broadcasts from the written word. For example, consider the issue of references.

You are obligated to pay taxes that pay wages of people who teach in the public, formal education system in your state, but if you refused to provide written references in essays, but instead rapidly spoke all references, then you likely wouldn't be able to acquire credentials required to work as a teacher and, as a student, you would probably be accused of violating some code of behavior.

Ordinarily, a television broadcast includes no references, or vague references, or references that scroll across the screen, at the end of a broadcast, too quickly to be copied. However, a television broadcast is usually copyrighted material. So nobody, except for the owner of that copyrighted material, can legally sell you a videotape of a broadcast, and the owner can charge you as much as the owner wishes and make you wait as long as the owner wishes.

The onus would be on you to schedule a future discussion with each individual viewer, to obtain a recording of each broadcast to be discussed, and to try to engage in a serious discussion with someone who treats political issues as little more than a form of entertainment.

Therefore, even if it were possible to persuade some people who are influenced by a broadcast to question what is influencing them and consider the issue of references, it would probably not be feasible to do that

material listed, so that people can research the validity, and so it conforms to more accepted styles of what is a document of a position, versus what is just trying to sway people.

Am I understanding your point better?

Or are you saying the quick TV ad is flawed because of limitation of source references?

Basically saying an ad in a form that can not be complete is always inaccurate because of that limitation?

No, I am not proposing any new requirements for advertisements.

This thread began with a question:


I think that the principle of "buyer beware" is well enough known to protect society from any seriously harmful effects of any political advertisement on radio or TV that is quite clearly a paid advertisement from a specified organization.

You are saying third parties could not pay for advertisement on political issues.

There is alot of loop holes, and issues, and even problems with that issue. Not that it does not have some merits, but without thinking it through, its hard to comment on.

I think requiring the identification, by 'so and so approves this message' was for that reason. To at least show which are approved by a candidate.

... time given to the political parties based on the percentage of the vote acheived, and in election time depending on how many candidates they are fielding in the election. They create the programming (not very long), but the main broadcasters air it for free for them. Yes, this does include having neo-fascist groups like the BNP on and the Pro Life Alliance wanting to air pictures of aborted foetuses (BBC refused to air theirs, was ruled unlawful in the High Court).